• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, congress demanding banks make loans to unqualified borrowers was the cause of the recession.
Click to expand...

Both bankers and borrowers are complicit in that practice whether you like it or not. Just because the government has some amount of influence in something doesn't make it the sole factor.

It also doesn't shake the primary concern. Borrowers ARE borrowers. They don't own property or capital.
 
ChrisL said:
No, there are plenty of morons who pay a mortgage. What the heck do you think contributed to the recession? Idiots taking out mortgages that they couldn't really afford.
Click to expand...

NO
Because that could include me ...a risk taker...
The properties were overvalued....the banks should have seen this and been more responsible....and conservative.... in issuing mortages.....
But, its true that we want not for "morons" , they are everywhere..
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you are on welfare will you vote for welfare reform?
Click to expand...
If you're a senior citizen, will you vote to cut Social Security or Medicare? Should we disenfranchise senior citizens, because they might vote for programs you might dislike?

If they are affected by the law, then they have the right to influence the law.

If you don't like the fact that renters have different political interests than you, that's your problem. I assure you, slagging them en masse is not going to convince them to come around to your point of view.
 
Ben K. said:
sawyerloggingon said:
Don't think the scale of the debt negates the principle that you're advocating people be in debt to secure a basic right. The banks would effectively own many peoples votes who can't outright buy a residence. Does this not seem a bit troubling to you?
Click to expand...

On the contrary I think people buying property so they could vote would force them into buying part of America and caring more about America than their own self interest.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
We draw lines now and not everyone gets to vote, you and I just disagree on where the line should be drawn.
Click to expand...
"Lines?" You have to be a citizen, over 18, and not a felon -- and felons can get voting rights restored.

Wow, yeah, we are clearly highly discriminating in who is allowed to vote. :roll:
 
Visbek said:
If you're a senior citizen, will you vote to cut Social Security or Medicare? Should we disenfranchise senior citizens, because they might vote for programs you might dislike?

If they are affected by the law, then they have the right to influence the law.

If you don't like the fact that renters have different political interests than you, that's your problem. I assure you, slagging them en masse is not going to convince them to come around to your point of view.
Click to expand...

As long as you own property you have a vote. If you have not demonstrated the drive or ability to buy land you have not demonstrated your ability to make good decisions so you can't vote or shouldn't anyway. We require people to follow laws and not be convicted felons for this very reason.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Ben K. said:
On the contrary I think people buying property so they could vote would force them into buying part of America and caring more about America than their own self interest.
Click to expand...

Arbitrarily assigning motivations and emotional responses to people you think should exist doesn't make them exist.

To people of sufficient wealth, America is a piggybank, and just one piggybank among many.
Click to expand...
 
My property includes a smartphone, a laptop, a car, a TV and an xbox. I should be able to vote right? Or are you equating property with land?
 
Oftencold said:
Certainly persons who can't form rational political statements in complete sentences and presenting valid arguments ought never vote. But that's obvious to the casual observer.
Click to expand...
An obvious emotional response , I also do this...
We must do what works best
Seeking solutions from the past is counter-productive...
ALL of the people must be included in the political discussion....and I believe that our nation is better due to this...
 
Morality Games said:
Both bankers and borrowers are complicit in that practice whether you like it or not. Just because the government has some amount of influence in something doesn't make it the sole factor.

It also doesn't shake the primary concern. Borrowers ARE borrowers. They don't own property or capital.
Click to expand...

When you borrow to purchase land you own that land until or unless you can't make your payments. This gives you incentive to vote for people and policy that will keep America sound and the economy strong.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When you borrow to purchase land you own that land until or unless you can't make your payments. This gives you incentive to vote for people and policy that will keep America sound and the economy strong.
Click to expand...

That is a complete non-sequitur. People who rent don't have incentive to vote for policies that keep America's economy strong?
 
StillBallin75 said:
That is a complete non-sequitur. People who rent don't have incentive to vote for policies that keep America's economy strong?
Click to expand...

Not nearly as much as property owners no. You pay month to month and have nothing to lose. Someone who bought a home put money down, they pay a mortgage, they make improvements, they have the pride of ownership and have a lot to lose. You can shrug your shoulders and walk away, see the difference?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When you borrow to purchase land you own that land until or unless you can't make your payments. This gives you incentive to vote for people and policy that will keep America sound and the economy strong.
Click to expand...

Or to vote for policy that eases demands on borrowers.

... which is what immediately happened when borrowers were given the right to vote post-Revolutionary War, inciting riots, class conflict, and even the Whiskey Rebellion.

Almost every single human being is on their own side, sympathizes with their own struggles, and anybody who gets in the way of their desires is an enemy.
 
Morality Games said:
Or to vote for policy that eases demands on borrowers.

... which is what immediately happened when borrowers were given the right to vote post-Revolutionary War, inciting riots, class conflict, and even the Whiskey Rebellion.
Click to expand...

If you already own land why would you vote for policy that eases demands on borrowers?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
As long as you own property you have a vote. If you have not demonstrated the drive or ability to buy land you have not demonstrated your ability to make good decisions so you can't vote or shouldn't anyway.
Click to expand...
So few words, so many fundamental errors...

• Voting is a right. Not a privilege.
• Owning property is not a valid proxy for "good citizenship."
• Owning property is certainly not an indicator of intelligence or wisdom.
• Do you intend to disenfranchise people who inherited land?
• Property owners certainly aren't going to vote your way. If they did, Obama would not be President right now.

More critically, it is not acceptable, and profoundly un-American, to say that "only people who I expect to act like X get to vote." The reality is that when citizens are free, they are going to make decisions that you personally do not agree with. That is the essence of liberty in a society -- not just "I get to do what I want," but also allowing others to make their own choices about how to be governed and how to live.


We require people to follow laws and not be convicted felons for this very reason.
Click to expand...
...no, we require people to obey laws for a variety of reasons, including securing the safety of citizens. States often revoke the *cough* right to vote as an additional punishment.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
Click to expand...
The problem with your argument is that it 1) assumes property ownership is an adequate measure of responsibility, 2) assumes that people come to own property primarily, or solely, because of hard work, and 3) assumes that the values you attribute to property owners are what the qualifications for voting should be measured by.

Each of those assumptions is false and thus, your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Ultimately, everybody has "skin in the game". Indeed, I would say that many poor people who cannot afford to own property have more "skin in the game" than wealthy people because many of them depend on government resources like public education whereas their wealthy counterparts do not as they can afford to buy into things like private education. It's frankly absurd to say that those who cannot afford property should not be able to vote when they are seriously affected by the government.

Ultimately, what you are proposing is a system that would cement class, race and other types of inequality even more than they already are and that is unacceptable. If you don't like the way certain people vote, then find a way to convince them to vote your way. However, proposing a way to simply disenfranchise them is not the way to go about it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Not nearly as much as property owners no. You pay month to month and have nothing to lose. Someone who bought a home put money down, they pay a mortgage, they make improvements, they have the pride of ownership and have a lot to lose. You can shrug your shoulders and walk away, see the difference?
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious how you think that I would suddenly become a Red blooded America loving patriot if I just went out right now and bought an acre of land.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Why 18? Why not 16?
Click to expand...
18 is the age of majority. When you're 18, you are granted a whole series of rights and privileges.

I see no reason whatsoever why 21 is better than 18 in this respect.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you already own land why would you vote for policy that eases demands on borrowers?
Click to expand...

Because you are paying a mortgage. Farmers and shopkeepers who were paying mortgages and were given the right to vote demanded the government force creditors (banks) to make them pay less on their loans.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you own property you own part of America and you want America to succeed. If you don't own property you are far more likely to vote for what is in your best interest instead of what is in America's best interest.
Click to expand...
I question the moral right of properly ownership.....after all, the property was all but stolen from the original inhabitents..
I do not think people should own land....
As far as "wanting America to succeed" , I do not think that property owners have an exclusive on this...
I think that everyone wishes to succeed....however this is defined....
Sawyer, I think you are assuming too much.....
I'd say that most people (left and right) vote for what is in THEIR best interests...
Has such a question ever been polled ?
And, should not the peoples best interest and America's best interest be one and the same ???
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If you own property you own part of America and you want America to succeed. If you don't own property you are far more likely to vote for what is in your best interest instead of what is in America's best interest.
Click to expand...
1. What's in "America's best interest" cannot often be objectively measured. I believe it is in American's best interest to stop intervening in conflicts overseas and legalize gay marriage nationally. Other people will disagree.

2. Most people I know who own property don't think of it as "owning a part of America." It isn't some patriotic thing. They needed/wanted a house. They bought the house. End of story. It doesn't increase their desire to help "America." Unless you have some research that demonstrates the veracity of your assumption that property ownership increases ones desire to vote in America's interest, your argument doesn't hold water.

3. Plenty of property owners vote primarily, if not solely, for what's in their best interest. You really think the property-owning executives at Fortune 500 companies vote for tax breaks for America? Really? No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom